The Relativist Fallacy, otherwise known as the Fallacy of Moderation, or the Moderation Fallacy is one of the most common logical fallacies in this day and age.
The essence of the Relativist Fallacy is that if there are two positions, position A and position B, and the two positions seem to be diametrically apposed to each other then the truth cannot be either of the extremes but must in fact be a mix of the two, or a compromise of some sort.
This fallacy is particularly dangerous when applied to ethical issues. For example, let's take the issue of war. Position A states that we should avoid war whenever possible, and under no circumstances should we engage in wars of aggression. Position B states that we must maintain the security of our country at all cost even if it means preemptively striking countries who have not attacked us. The relativist position tries to seek a middle ground, and in the face of the two positions on war it may try to state that we should avoid war most of the time, but if we feel that a country is dangerous perhaps some limited military strikes may be justified.
Another example is murder. One person believes murder is wrong and should be avoided, and another believes that killing people is fun. Clearly in these cases compromise is not in order.
In the age of political correctness it seems that many people are unwilling to take a firm stand and hold positions that seem extreme. I call this intellectual cowardice. However, regardless of our personal feelings on the subject, in terms of logic, moderation is clearly not the path to truth. When playing by the rules of logic, truth must be ascertained through facts, and ethics must stand on their own merits.
.
| 